3D TV, films, etc. Is the party over?
Discussion
I'm not sure if this is the best place for this.
Listening to the radio on the way home I heard this story - 3D sport channel on ESPN to close after three years.
Listening to the radio on the way home I heard this story - 3D sport channel on ESPN to close after three years.
king standard! Massive huge f
Until they can get shot of the 3D glasses it will not catch on at home imho.
Sky 3d is now free and the sport and movies are active if you subscribe to those packages as well.
I really like it, it adds so much depth to things.
We love the Galapogos stuff on Sky 3D, having been lucky enough to have been there it really is just like that. Surround Sound on as well gives so much realism.
V.
I really like it, it adds so much depth to things.
We love the Galapogos stuff on Sky 3D, having been lucky enough to have been there it really is just like that. Surround Sound on as well gives so much realism.
V.
The film studios weren't overly restrained in their use of the technology, meaning an awful lot of tripe was committed to film, and it only takes one badly converted film to harm the reputation of a couple of good natively shot ones.
There have been some truly brilliant native 3D releases (both films, documentaries and the odd sporting coverage. I'm actually surprised 3D has lasted as long as it has, and studios are still producing films in 3D, when ticket sales would indicate there's little interest. The thing to bear in mind is that the inherent cost difference of filming in 3D over 2D, is no longer the 40-60% extra that it used to be. As directors and camera crews gained more experience with the kit and workflow, it became quicker aka less expensive, and they feel shooting in 3D still adds value. The cost of 3D Blu-Rays hasn't reduced, if anything they're more pricey now, but that's a byproduct of being sold as a 3-Blu/2D Blu/UV/ etc etc package.
I'd hazard a guess that we'll still have the option of buying 3D TV sets in 12-18 months (though the shift will become that it's a TV with 3D capability, rather than a 3D TV with a normal capability in terms of sales pitch).
There's bigger amounts of effort being pumped into R&D'ing smart features (and making your TV a one stop shop for home entertainment), and incorporating all of that into a 4K panel.
4K already has a solution for bandwidth limitations (RED have done some good work with their kit - I'm just waiting on their PJ so I can offload my JVC). The issue with 4K being unless you're using a large panel (perhaps 65" minimum), there's really no point - the extra resolution only becomes of benefit when you get into large screen sizes, therefore it'll be the projector market that embraces 4K with open arms IMO. I don't believe a 50-55" 4K display is at all worth it. The big LG & Sony panels are a better bet, but the masses don't generally spend that kind of money, nor want a TV that big.
There have been some truly brilliant native 3D releases (both films, documentaries and the odd sporting coverage. I'm actually surprised 3D has lasted as long as it has, and studios are still producing films in 3D, when ticket sales would indicate there's little interest. The thing to bear in mind is that the inherent cost difference of filming in 3D over 2D, is no longer the 40-60% extra that it used to be. As directors and camera crews gained more experience with the kit and workflow, it became quicker aka less expensive, and they feel shooting in 3D still adds value. The cost of 3D Blu-Rays hasn't reduced, if anything they're more pricey now, but that's a byproduct of being sold as a 3-Blu/2D Blu/UV/ etc etc package.
I'd hazard a guess that we'll still have the option of buying 3D TV sets in 12-18 months (though the shift will become that it's a TV with 3D capability, rather than a 3D TV with a normal capability in terms of sales pitch).
There's bigger amounts of effort being pumped into R&D'ing smart features (and making your TV a one stop shop for home entertainment), and incorporating all of that into a 4K panel.
4K already has a solution for bandwidth limitations (RED have done some good work with their kit - I'm just waiting on their PJ so I can offload my JVC). The issue with 4K being unless you're using a large panel (perhaps 65" minimum), there's really no point - the extra resolution only becomes of benefit when you get into large screen sizes, therefore it'll be the projector market that embraces 4K with open arms IMO. I don't believe a 50-55" 4K display is at all worth it. The big LG & Sony panels are a better bet, but the masses don't generally spend that kind of money, nor want a TV that big.
VEX said:
Sky 3d is now free and the sport and movies are active if you subscribe to those packages as well.
I really like it, it adds so much depth to things.
We love the Galapogos stuff on Sky 3D, having been lucky enough to have been there it really is just like that. Surround Sound on as well gives so much realism.
V.
Thanks for that. Just got my subscription upgraded for free.I really like it, it adds so much depth to things.
We love the Galapogos stuff on Sky 3D, having been lucky enough to have been there it really is just like that. Surround Sound on as well gives so much realism.
V.
People can say what they like about it being a gimmick but it is a very, very impressive gimmick.
I just think the way Sky went about it was wrong. It's all well and good charging extra but if you only have one channel showing lots of different types of programmes, most people aren't going to want to fork out an extra tenner a month to only watch one or two programmes a week, at least I didn't anyway. Now that it's free however, I can see myself watching quite a bit on there.
I really enjoy watching 3D, either on TV or at the Cinema. The cost of 3D blurays is outrageous though. Agree Prometheus is great in 3D on TV. Recently saw Star Trek in 3D IMAX and it was really impressive.
Strangely I'm the only member of my family who actually likes it though. Even the kids not interested.
Strangely I'm the only member of my family who actually likes it though. Even the kids not interested.
fuelracer496 said:
The film studios weren't overly restrained in their use of the technology, meaning an awful lot of tripe was committed to film, and it only takes one badly converted film to harm the reputation of a couple of good natively shot ones.
There have been some truly brilliant native 3D releases (both films, documentaries and the odd sporting coverage. I'm actually surprised 3D has lasted as long as it has, and studios are still producing films in 3D, when ticket sales would indicate there's little interest. The thing to bear in mind is that the inherent cost difference of filming in 3D over 2D, is no longer the 40-60% extra that it used to be. As directors and camera crews gained more experience with the kit and workflow, it became quicker aka less expensive, and they feel shooting in 3D still adds value. The cost of 3D Blu-Rays hasn't reduced, if anything they're more pricey now, but that's a byproduct of being sold as a 3-Blu/2D Blu/UV/ etc etc package.
I'd hazard a guess that we'll still have the option of buying 3D TV sets in 12-18 months (though the shift will become that it's a TV with 3D capability, rather than a 3D TV with a normal capability in terms of sales pitch).
There's bigger amounts of effort being pumped into R&D'ing smart features (and making your TV a one stop shop for home entertainment), and incorporating all of that into a 4K panel.
4K already has a solution for bandwidth limitations (RED have done some good work with their kit - I'm just waiting on their PJ so I can offload my JVC). The issue with 4K being unless you're using a large panel (perhaps 65" minimum), there's really no point - the extra resolution only becomes of benefit when you get into large screen sizes, therefore it'll be the projector market that embraces 4K with open arms IMO. I don't believe a 50-55" 4K display is at all worth it. The big LG & Sony panels are a better bet, but the masses don't generally spend that kind of money, nor want a TV that big.
Personally I find OLED and similar more exciting technology developments. I was blown away with the picture quality on my wife's OLED phone when watching some HD video on it. There have been some truly brilliant native 3D releases (both films, documentaries and the odd sporting coverage. I'm actually surprised 3D has lasted as long as it has, and studios are still producing films in 3D, when ticket sales would indicate there's little interest. The thing to bear in mind is that the inherent cost difference of filming in 3D over 2D, is no longer the 40-60% extra that it used to be. As directors and camera crews gained more experience with the kit and workflow, it became quicker aka less expensive, and they feel shooting in 3D still adds value. The cost of 3D Blu-Rays hasn't reduced, if anything they're more pricey now, but that's a byproduct of being sold as a 3-Blu/2D Blu/UV/ etc etc package.
I'd hazard a guess that we'll still have the option of buying 3D TV sets in 12-18 months (though the shift will become that it's a TV with 3D capability, rather than a 3D TV with a normal capability in terms of sales pitch).
There's bigger amounts of effort being pumped into R&D'ing smart features (and making your TV a one stop shop for home entertainment), and incorporating all of that into a 4K panel.
4K already has a solution for bandwidth limitations (RED have done some good work with their kit - I'm just waiting on their PJ so I can offload my JVC). The issue with 4K being unless you're using a large panel (perhaps 65" minimum), there's really no point - the extra resolution only becomes of benefit when you get into large screen sizes, therefore it'll be the projector market that embraces 4K with open arms IMO. I don't believe a 50-55" 4K display is at all worth it. The big LG & Sony panels are a better bet, but the masses don't generally spend that kind of money, nor want a TV that big.
OllieC said:
if the film isn't worth watching in 2d, I doubt 3d will make it any better...
gimmick.
Avatar was a much better film in 3D. In 3D you felt more part of the story; it was far more engaging. In 2D it was a fairly average predictable sci-fi. When I saw it at the cinema I thought wow, when I saw it at home in 2D I thought meh.gimmick.
rhinochopig said:
OllieC said:
if the film isn't worth watching in 2d, I doubt 3d will make it any better...
gimmick.
Avatar was a much better film in 3D. In 3D you felt more part of the story; it was far more engaging. In 2D it was a fairly average predictable sci-fi. When I saw it at the cinema I thought wow, when I saw it at home in 2D I thought meh.gimmick.
I wanted the 'bad guys' to win
OllieC said:
rhinochopig said:
OllieC said:
if the film isn't worth watching in 2d, I doubt 3d will make it any better...
gimmick.
Avatar was a much better film in 3D. In 3D you felt more part of the story; it was far more engaging. In 2D it was a fairly average predictable sci-fi. When I saw it at the cinema I thought wow, when I saw it at home in 2D I thought meh.gimmick.
I wanted the 'bad guys' to win
Did Rager Dean actually sue the makers in the end?
I bought a Panasonic tv because it was the best at the price....it happened to have 3D which I was mildly excited about.
I bought a pair of 3D specs which weren't cheap. I watched some Wimbledon in 3D a couple of years ago. I was mildly impressed but found everything went a bit dark and got a little annoyed at having wear 3D glasses over my normal glasses.
The glasses have been sitting gathering dust behind the tv every since.
1080p is fantastic.
3D is a gimmick and nothing more.
8K?? Is there any point unless you're sitting 3 feet away from a 50" tv?
I bought a pair of 3D specs which weren't cheap. I watched some Wimbledon in 3D a couple of years ago. I was mildly impressed but found everything went a bit dark and got a little annoyed at having wear 3D glasses over my normal glasses.
The glasses have been sitting gathering dust behind the tv every since.
1080p is fantastic.
3D is a gimmick and nothing more.
8K?? Is there any point unless you're sitting 3 feet away from a 50" tv?
Bought a Panasonic 50" plasma last year with 3d, came with tow pairs of glasses. Watched the demo and that was it! The demo was good enough but I have no interest in it.
The problem with 3D especially in this country vs say America (where they sell many more big screens as a % of sales) is that you really need a the very least a 50" screen and I think you the manufacturers say you need to be sitting something like less than 6t away from a 50" screen for the 3d effet to be "immersive"...and you need to be sitting straight on....so in reality it's not a family experience, maximum 2 people can really watch 3D media together and how many people in this country have a 50" TV, sit less than 6ft from the screen and are geeky enough to care about it?!?! Not many.....
The problem with 3D especially in this country vs say America (where they sell many more big screens as a % of sales) is that you really need a the very least a 50" screen and I think you the manufacturers say you need to be sitting something like less than 6t away from a 50" screen for the 3d effet to be "immersive"...and you need to be sitting straight on....so in reality it's not a family experience, maximum 2 people can really watch 3D media together and how many people in this country have a 50" TV, sit less than 6ft from the screen and are geeky enough to care about it?!?! Not many.....
i also managed to get a plasma 50 inch 3d tv for a very good price, and it came with a pair of 3 d Glasses, i really liked my Plasma, these are my thoughts on watching in 3D on an active plasma tv
Sport: i find is a waste of time, more often or not it just looks like carboard cut outs and i didnt enjoy it too
Films: generally the glasses make the film much darker, and if you want to adjust the screen brightness its a little bit of trial and error but interrupts the flow
Nature and animals: this is where it absolutely is worth the extra £100 or so for the 3d. watching animals is fantastic, its so realistic and i never get bored with watching it in 3d, it definately is worth it IMO
the glasses are slightly heavy and quite expensive
Passive Tv
i bought a passive led tv, and i find this is generally a much better watch, i bought it in a 47 inch and its hooked up to my playstation, and wii and a lounging chair in my den which is just for me i will probably swap this with the 50 inch one for when my partner and i watch 3d as she finds tha active glasses heavy
these are a few films i enjoyed in 3d and which i think were better in 3d
up
brave
avatar
polar express
despicable me
note that they are cartoons!
i also enjoyed Hugo which i thought was good in 3d
i am very much looking forward to getting Tron legacy in 3d as i thought it was great in 2d
these are 3d films i did not enjoy just because they were in 3d
coraline
Men in black 3
monsters and aliens
gnomeo and juliet
piranha
a christmas carol
hope this is of some help
if i had to choose between active or passive i would choose passive, mainly for the weight of the glasses and the darkening effect
Sport: i find is a waste of time, more often or not it just looks like carboard cut outs and i didnt enjoy it too
Films: generally the glasses make the film much darker, and if you want to adjust the screen brightness its a little bit of trial and error but interrupts the flow
Nature and animals: this is where it absolutely is worth the extra £100 or so for the 3d. watching animals is fantastic, its so realistic and i never get bored with watching it in 3d, it definately is worth it IMO
the glasses are slightly heavy and quite expensive
Passive Tv
i bought a passive led tv, and i find this is generally a much better watch, i bought it in a 47 inch and its hooked up to my playstation, and wii and a lounging chair in my den which is just for me i will probably swap this with the 50 inch one for when my partner and i watch 3d as she finds tha active glasses heavy
these are a few films i enjoyed in 3d and which i think were better in 3d
up
brave
avatar
polar express
despicable me
note that they are cartoons!
i also enjoyed Hugo which i thought was good in 3d
i am very much looking forward to getting Tron legacy in 3d as i thought it was great in 2d
these are 3d films i did not enjoy just because they were in 3d
coraline
Men in black 3
monsters and aliens
gnomeo and juliet
piranha
a christmas carol
hope this is of some help
if i had to choose between active or passive i would choose passive, mainly for the weight of the glasses and the darkening effect
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff